Public boards need to raise their game, Holyrood committee claims
Boards of Scotland’s public bodies must learn from recent failings in governance, a Holyrood Committee has warned today.
In a letter to the Scottish Government, the Public Audit & Post-Legislative Scrutiny Committee sets out eight proposals for improvement – beginning with more openness from those in charge and avoiding the temptation to try and silence dissent.
The committee specifically names the Scottish Police Authority, whose chair Andrew Flanagan agreed in July to resign after two MSP committees, one of them Public Audit, expressed lack of confidence in his leadership following a row over closed meetings, his failure to circulate critical correspondence and his attempt to prevent then board member Moi Ali from disagreeing publicly over thgese matters.
However its recommendations come in the wake of various reports by the Auditor General for Scotland that have raised governance concerns. It finds that many of the criticisms made in an Audit Scotland report of 2010, on the role of boards in Scotland, are still valid seven years on.
Suggestions for improving board performance include:
- Members – many of whom are non-expert lay people – must be encouraged to provide an effective challenge to board chairs and chief executives, while understanding that they remain part of the team, and not feel inhibited or embarrassed about asking basic questions, which can often be the best means of uncovering a problem. "In short, we wish to prevent ‘group think’ on our boards", the MSPs state.
- "As our experience with the SPA highlighted, it is vital that board members of all public bodies have a clear understanding of the concept of corporate responsibility and exactly what it does and does not entail. For the avoidance of doubt, it is not a means of silencing ‘difficult’ voices."
- To help deal with concerns about a poorly performing chair or chief executive, having a senior independent director on a board, as is the case in some parts of the private sector, could be a useful, additional check and balance on performance.
- In order to improve service delivery and ensure public confidence, there needs to be a fully effective and transparent means of assessing the performance of board chairs and board members, through clear, publicly-available criteria by which they can be judged.
- To attract the best possible candidates, the appointment process should be as simple, streamlined and non-bureaucratic as possible: the committee understands that some potentially very capable candidates from the private sector are reluctant to take part just because of the amount of time needed to apply.
- The committee wants to ensure that people with a successful track record in the public, private and third sectors have an equal chance of succeeding, "not simply those who are most adept at repeating public sector jargon". It also wants to avoid a situation "whereby some people are on a large number of boards and, potentially, unable to devote sufficient time to each".
- When the Scottish Government decides to introduce new legislation it should – where relevant – give greater consideration to any governance arrangements that would be created and how these could best deliver the desired outcomes. "Some of the problems we have encountered have stemmed from poor initial decisions on governance arrangements."
- Similarly, while it is entirely up to parliamentary committees as to how they scrutinise bills, "a greater focus on governance issues at the outset may prevent a recurrence of the problems identified repeatedly through the audit process".
Acting convener Jackie Baillie MSP commented: “Our committee wants to be reassured that Scotland’s public bodies are spending public money wisely and delivering the best possible outcomes for the people they serve. In order to do so, they must be led by a well-functioning board with clear lines of responsibility and accountability.
“However, there’s been a steady stream of critical reports for many years now, highlighting often serious governance failings in public bodies. For example, our recent experience with the Scottish Police Authority highlighted that while board members must demonstrate corporate responsibility, this is not a means of silencing ‘difficult’ voices.
“It is not in anyone’s interest for there to be constant critical reports about our public bodies. This is why we’ve suggested several ways in which boards could be made more effective and have also called on the Scottish Government to demonstrate leadership by explaining how it tries to bring about improvements in governance and performance.”